RESEARCH PAPER
Impact of reduced ignition propensity cigarette regulation on consumer smoking behavior and quit intentions: evidence from 6 waves (2004–11) of the ITC Four Country Survey
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA
2
The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
3
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA
4
School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
5
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
6
Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Canada
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Sarah E. Adkison   

Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA
Publish date: 2013-12-21
 
Tobacco Induced Diseases 2013;11(December):26
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Although on the decline, smoking-related fires remain a leading cause of fire death in the United States and United Kingdom and account for over 10% of fire-related deaths worldwide. This has prompted lawmakers to enact legislation requiring manufacturers to implement reduced ignition propensity (RIP) safety standards for cigarettes. The current research evaluates how implementation of RIP safety standards in different countries influenced smokers’ perceptions of cigarette self-extinguishment, frequency of extinguishment, and the impact on consumer smoking behaviors, including cigarettes smoked per day and planning to quit.

Methods:
Participants for this research come from Waves 3 through 8 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey conducted longitudinally from 2004 through 2011 in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.

Results:
Perceptions of cigarette self-extinguishment and frequency of extinguishment increased concurrently with an increase in the prevalence of RIP safety standards for cigarettes. Presence of RIP safety standards was also associated with a greater intention to quit smoking, but was not associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Intention to quit was higher among those who were more likely to report that their cigarettes self-extinguish sometimes and often, but we found no evidence of an interaction between frequency of extinguishment and RIP safety standards on quit intentions.

Conclusions:
Overall, because these standards largely do not influence consumer smoking behavior, RIP implementation may significantly reduce the number of cigarette-related fires and the associated death and damages. Further research should assess how implementation of RIP safety standards has influenced smoking-related fire incidence, deaths, and other costs associated with smoking-related fires.

 
REFERENCES (24)
1.
FEMA: Smoking-related fires in residential buildings 2008–2010. Topical Fire Report Series. 2012, 11 (4): 1-12.
 
2.
Department for Communities and Local Government: Fire statistics, United Kingdom 2008. 2010.
 
3.
Leistikow BN, Martin DC, Milano CE: Fire injuries, disasters, and costs from cigarettes and cigarette lights: a global overview. Prev Med. 2000, 31 (2): 91-99. 10.1006/pmed.2000.0680.
 
4.
Alpert H: Regulating cigarettes for fire safety. 2007, May: A law synopsis by the Tobacc Control Legal Consortium.
 
5.
Alpert HR, O’Connor R, Spalletta R, Connolly GN: Recent advances in cigarette ignition propensity research and development. Fire Technol. 2010, 46 (2): 275-289. 10.1007/s10694-008-0070-8.
 
6.
Connolly GN, Alpert HR, Rees V, Carpenter C, Wayne GF, Vallone D: Effect of the New York State cigarette fire safety standard on ignition propensity, smoke constituents, and the consumer market. Tob Control. 2005, 14 (5): 321-327. 10.1136/tc.2005.011759.
 
7.
Cigarette ignition propensity regulations. http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/... (accessed 25 Jully 2012).
 
8.
Australia: trade practices (Consumer product safety standard) (reduced fire risk cigarettes) regulations. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLa... (accessed 25 July 2012).
 
9.
ASTM Standard C33: Specification for concrete aggregates. 2003, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, doi:10.1520/C0033-03, http://www.astm.org.
 
10.
Payne TJ: Memo from Reynolds American inc: to general James M Shannon. 2007.
 
11.
The Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1994 HR 3885: Hearing before the committee on commerce, consumer protection and competitiveness (1994).
 
12.
Gunja M, Ferris WG, Landman A, Connolly G, McGuire A: The case for fire safe cigarettes made through industry documents. Tob Control. 2002, 11 (4): 346-353. 10.1136/tc.11.4.346.
 
13.
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company: Comments to proposed rulemaking, fire safety standars for cigarettes. 2003, RJ Reynolds. http://tobaccodocuments.org (Bastes No. 528767372).
 
14.
Hawkins M: Comments of philip morris USA, inc. (“PM USA”) on the proposed New York fire safety standards for cigarettes (to add new part 429 to title 19 NY comp codes R & Regs). 2003, Phillip Morris USA, http://tobaccodocuments.org (Bastes No. 528767429).
 
15.
Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Connolly GN: The role of sensory perception in the development and targeting of tobacco products. Addiction. 2007, 102 (1): 136-147. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01649.x.
 
16.
O’Connor RJ, Giovino GA, Fix BV, Hyland A, Hammond D, Fong GT: Smokers’ reactions to reduced ignition propensily cigarettes. Tob Control. 2006, 15 (1): 45-49. 10.1136/tc.2005.013532.
 
17.
O’Connor RJ, Fix BV, Hammond D, Giovino GA, Hyland A, Fong GT: The impact of reduced ignition propensity cigarette regulation on smoking behaviour in a cohort of Ontario smokers. Inj Prev. 2010, 16 (6): 420-422. 10.1136/ip.2009.025114.
 
18.
Seidenberg AB, Rees VW, Alpert HR, O’Connor RJ, Giovino GA, Hyland A: Smokers’ self-reported responses to the introduction of reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarettes. Tob Control. 2012, 21 (3): 337-340. 10.1136/tc.2011.043257.
 
19.
Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings G, Hyland A, Giovino GA: The conceptual framework of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project. Tob Control. 2006, 15 (3): 3-11.
 
20.
Thompson ME, Fong GT, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Driezen P, Hyland A: Methods of the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control. 2006, 15 (3): iii12-iii18.
 
21.
Shults J, Sun W, Tu X, Kim H, Amsterdam J, Hilbe JM: A comparison of several approaches for choosing between working correlation structures in generalized estimating equation analysis of longitudinal binary data. Stat Med. 2009, 28 (18): 2338-2355. 10.1002/sim.3622.
 
22.
Young D, Borland R, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Devlin E, Yong H-H: Prevalence and attributes of roll-your-own smokers in the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control. 2006, 15 (3): iii76-iii82.
 
23.
Young D, Yong H-H, Borland R, Shahab L, Hammond D, Cummings KM: Trends in roll-your-own smoking: findings from the ITC four-country survey (2002–2008). J Environ Public Health. 2012, 2012: 7.
 
24.
Borland R, Partos TR, Cummings KM: Systematic biases in cross-sectional community studies may underestimate the effectiveness of stop-smoking medications. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012, 7: 7.
 
 
CITATIONS (2):
1.
Prevalence and reasons for use of electronic cigarettes among smokers: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey
Karin Hummel, Ciska Hoving, Gera E. Nagelhout, Hein de Vries, Bas van den Putte, Math J.J.M. Candel, Ron Borland, Marc C. Willemsen
International Journal of Drug Policy
 
2.
The effects of the lower ignition propensity cigarettes standard in Estonia: time-series analysis
Indrek Saar
Injury Prevention
 
eISSN:1617-9625